Methodical Approaches to Evaluation of Governmental Regulation on Human Capital Development

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Methodical approaches to evaluation of governmantal regulation on human capital development

Igor DUNAYEV

Senior lecturer,

Kharkiv regional institute of

National academy of public

administration under the

President of Ukraine

divon1@gmail.com

Human capital development (HCD) as qualitative change of productive human's qualities within all-institutional settings activity, exerts almost on the most sectors of public life. On the one hand, it annually causes assignments of educational and scientific-and-innovative sectors among nationwide precedence. On the other hand, it stipulates the certain obstacles both at a level of precise comprehension of such development features, and at a level of searching for balance between socially-focused economy and so-called „economic breakthrough”. Nevertheless, Government's actions and declarations motivated with growing year-to-year allocations have little desirable outcomes, such as advancing facilities for skilled employees on the labor market etc., and finally stable rising of the standards of living. Partly the problem lies in impossibility to fully analyze effectiveness of the policy with respect to major factors and HCD components on macrolevel.

There are a number of approaches to appraise varying aspects about human potential development, national competitiveness, economy regulatory quality, knowledge-based economy background. First of all, these are widely applied indices by World Bank, OECD, UNDP, World Economic Forum, Institute for Management Development etc. with compulsory cross-countries comparison by their overall parameters. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that there is a range of national government-made techniques (Ukraine, the USA, Canada etc.) mostly developed for national economic (in macroeconomic, R&D, social, demographic dimensions) and governance environment estimation.

Considering the various methodological approaches to public administration assessment, I will estimate public authorities' performing against the national strategies, target programs and other acts. Analysis of academic literature indicates that there is no precise conventional system of indicators, criteria and marginal values of optimums, as well as no explicit technique for extra muros evaluation of public sector performance quality respecting to qualitative human capital development human capital governmental regulation

So, the purpose of the paper is to improve methodical provisions for public regulation evaluation of human capital development. This goal is logically supported by the point, „it's impossible to improve that it's impossible to assess” widely-spread in business. The essence of the quantitative public regulation evaluation is to analyze and to rank the current results of authorities' activity using the proper technique (indicators, proportions, sequence of operations etc.). These indicators and technique have to entirely characterize recent policies' results with respect to quality managerial services provision and desirable social-and-economic outputs attainment. They're usually believed to be one of the major elements in improvement of governmental regulation mechanisms. Meanwhile, these gears are the systems of principles, methods, means, actions and approaches that are used by authorities to attain proper aims and to resolve conflicts in the sphere of human capital development.

Depending on public administration peculiarities throughout the sectors of economy, right effectiveness can be determined by three quantitative and quality indicators' groups of: 1) estimations of proper processes or procedures, 2) achievements of the certain (e.g., planned) qualitative characteristics, and 3) parameters of budgetary services productivity and prime cost. A complete set of governance efficiency parameters and indicators could be a good basis for recent aims and operations balancing by the appropriate authorities.

In the initial stage, a process of any integral assessment designing includes forming an array of indicators. This variety is conditioned by selection of right indicators grounded on statistical data (objective approach) and on survey sources (individual subjective approach). In particular, one can cite the Methodic for Calculation of Economic Safety Level of Ukraine developed and adopted in 2006-2007 (Ukraine's Ministry of Economics, 2007). This act includes parameters to operate with official statistical data only. Nevertheless, methodical approaches made by some international organizations (World Bank, WEF, and Institute for Management Development etc.) actively use experts' estimations and consequently demand the special internal accounting. Primary data gathering and indicators calculation techniques should provide high actual parameters' accuracy for ensuring their reliability and verification. Activity effectiveness estimation requires for regular methodical work by improving appropriate parameters and margin-values monitoring. And such functions might be assigned to special body (for example, intradepartmental sector or special committee).

The set of proposed analytical so-called „Indicators of action” includes two categories of parameters: indicators of development dynamics and indicators of development efficiency. Their selection has been made after generalization of world experience (OECD, 2006; World development indicators by Worldbank; Afonso A., Schuknecht L., Tanzi V. for European Central Bank, 2003; WEF, 2004; IMD, 2006; UNCTAD, 2005; The Council on Competitiveness of Ukraine, 2007) in appraising the scientific and technical activities and national competitiveness. Also monographic studying of UNDP human development materials for governments of Belarus, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan impacted there. Derived 28 indicators were classified on groups: Key performance indicators (with separate macroeconomic and demographic indices), Indicators on educational potential, Indicators on scientific-and-technical potential and Indicators on governmental regulation effectiveness.

Obviously, that each factors groups' value and weight will be different for the governmental regulation performance determination. Guided by the purpose to estimate the indicators' weighting coefficients, we have held the separate expert survey. After analyzing the figured estimations for each factor influence, experts have assigned weighting coefficients for all 4 groups of indicators K_1n (See: Table). Using these data as a base for further accounting, weighting coefficients for each indicator (К_2n) in groups was determined (see Table below). The general level of governmental regulation is conventionally assumed as `one'. Quantitative (on statistics base) and qualitative (on expert estimations base) parameters can be conformed in a single synthetic coefficient by using simple integral index.

If a privy (expert, appraiser etc.) arrives at a conclusion that a certain defining factor is underestimated or overestimated using the weighting coefficients (К_1n and К_2n) presented above, there is a possibility to give a special bonus mark with “+” or “?” signs up to 10 points.

Next, the marked points are multiplied on К_1n and К_2n coefficients, and eventuate data are summed up by the indicators' groups and variants. The offered technique can be mathematically described with a formula:

Table

Performance Indicators of Governmental Regulation on Human Capital Development

GR HCD =

,

where GR HCD is summarized governmental regulation on HCD index;

? core of all indicators on key performance appraisal (group A);

? score of all indicators on educational potential appraisal (group B);

? score of all indicators on scientific-and-technical potential appraisal (group C);

? score of all indicators on governmental regulation effectiveness appraisal (group D);

? relevant weighting coefficients for the separate indicator into the A, B, C, D groups;

? relevant weighting coefficients for A, B, C, D groups;

? bonus mark in the A, B, C, D indicator's group.

So, resulted above indicators can ensure the actual basis for defining: 1) a strategic feedback for performance audit of the subject domain throughout several principal sectors; 2) a diagnostic feedback with different processes for change management needs; 3) time trends of authorities efficiency changes according to control by these parameters; 4) a feedback between appraisal methodic and controllable parameters selection; 5) quantitative primary data for case forecasting and modeling.

During the governmental regulation performance analysis, one can conduct a comparative cross-country or cross-territory analysis. It's appropriate to make contemporary cross-country comparisons, first of all, in spheres of infrastructure development and financing, public health services, obtainable education. In our case, application of this technique for the international comparisons is perspective and lays out our further researches. In particular, it is necessary to normalize parameters, to authentically determine weighted factors marks and to try to accomplish the cross-country studies among experts.

References

1. A Methodic for Calculation of Economic Security of Ukraine [in Ukrainian]: adopted by Order of Ukraine's Ministry of Economy №60 from 02.03.2007 // www.me.gov.ua/control/uk/publish

2. /article?art_id=97980&cat_id=38738

3. Afonso A., Schuknecht L., Tanzi V. Public sector efficiency: An international comparison. - Frankfurt: European Central Bank. 2003. - Working paper No.242 //www.europa-kommissionen.dk/eu-politik/noegleomraader/euro_m.m./ecb-rapport/

4. Competitiveness Monitor / The Council on Competitiveness of Ukraine. - Kiev, 2007. - No.1 // http://compete.org.ua/images/mc.pdf

5. Dunayev I. Effectiveness of governmental regulation on human capital development in Ukraine // CEU Political Science Journal. - 2007. - Vol. 2, №3. - Pp. 255-279..

6. Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Mastruzzi M. Governance Matters VI: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996-2006. - WorldBank, 2007. - 194 p. - P. 27

7. OECD Annual Report 2006 // www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/61/36511265.pdf

8. The Global Competitiveness Report 2003-2004. - Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2004 // www.weforum.org.

9. UNCTAD Report on Trade and Development: 2005. - New York: United Nations Conference for Trade And Development, 2006. - UNCTAD/ТDR/2005.

10. World Competitiveness Yearbook 2006. - Lausanne: Institute for Management Development, 2007 // www.imd.ch/documents/wcc/BookTour.pdf

11. World Development Indicators // http://devdata.worldbank.org/data-query/

Размещено на Allbest.ru